Margheim !1

Consolation and Commemoration in Horace Odes 1.24 and 4.12

For it shall be my dirge and chant me down Over the mournful flood to the dim shore, Where I shall find Quintilius and our tears.Yes, farewell, Horace! Unto you I leave The laurel and the letters that we loved; Till we shall meet again. I cannot hold Your light yet heavy Epicurean creed; Your lays “shall outlive brass and pyramid”, But he that made them shall outlive the lays, Though how or where we know not.

- 328-37, from The Death of Virgil, A Dramatic Narrative (1907) by Sir Thomas H. Warren

0. Introduction

The death of Vergil was no doubt a tragic event for Rome and her citizens, and

even more so for his friends, among whom would surely be counted the poet Horace. 1

Unfortunately, we have little extant evidence which might shed light on their friendship

more generally and Horace’s reaction to Vergil’s death in particular; little, that is, save 2

Odes 4.12. An odd poem, it invites Vergil to join Horace at a symposium, although the

On their friendship, see Campbell 1987: 314-318 and Duckworth 1956: 281-316; that the two were not 1friends by the time of the Odes, see Thomas 2001: 60 who argues that Horace and Vergil were only ac-quaintances and Moritz 1969: 13 who believes that the friendship was strained by the publication of the Odes. For a response to such readings, see Margheim 2012.

Horace’s poetry provides the sole basis for positing a friendship. Vergil does not mention Horace by 2name in his poetry, and no other contemporary or near-contemporary sources ascribe amicitia to the two poets, although by 380 St. Jerome assumes a friendship. Horace names Vergil ten times throughout his corpus (Sat. 1.5.40, 48, 1.6.55, 1.10.45, 81; Odes 1.3.6, 1.24.10, 4.12.13; Ep. 2.1.247; A.P. 55), five times in the Satires alone, where Vergil consistently appears as a friend and colleague.

Margheim !2

poem was published six years after Vergil's death in 19 BC. This post-mortem poem to 3

Vergil forms an odd pair with an earlier ode—Odes 1.24—also addressed to Vergil and

also written following the death of a friend. In this poem, Vergil receives frank criticism

for his excessive and misguided mourning following the death of Vergil and Horace’s

mutual friend Quintilius Varus. While in 1.24 Horace consoles the aggrieved Vergil, in 4

4.12 Horace finds himself in Vergil's position—grieving the death of a friend.

Horace confronts grief and death directly in both Odes 1.24 and 4.12, and each

poem ends with a generalizing sententia, yet their import would appear contradictory.

On the one hand, Odes 1.24 recommends the consolatory power of patience:

Durum; sed levius fit patientia quicquid corrigere est nefas

Odes 1.24.19-20

It is hard; but whatever is forbidden to correct becomes easier to bear with patience.5

On the other hand, Odes 4.12 turns to the sweetness of folly:

misce stultitiam consiliis brevem:

Though there is some debate whether the Vergilius of 4.12 is Virgil the poet, the opinio communis today 3asserts this identification (see below, p. 11 n. 20 and p. 13 n. 25).

For readings of Odes 1.24, see Commager 1995: 287-90, Khan 1999, Nisbet and Hubbard 1990: 279-89, 4Lowrie 1994: 377-394, Putnam 1993, and West 1995: 112-15. For the Epicurean, and specifically Philode-man, influence on the ode, see Thibodeau 2003: 243-56 and Armstrong 2008: 97-99.

Unless noted, Latin text of Horace's Odes is Garrison 1991 and translations are my own.5

Margheim !3

dulce est desipere in loco.Odes 4.12.25-28

Mix brief folly into your plans: it is sweet to act the fool in the proper place.

This seeming contradiction invites the question: How ought one to understand Odes

4.12 in relation to 1.24? More specifically, this paper considers whether Horace has con-

tradicted his own advice in 1.24 by addressing Vergil as if alive in 4.12. Taken together,

these two post-mortem poems addressed to Vergil form a diptych of sorts, offering in-

sight into how Horace believes one ought to or can mourn. In Odes 1.24, Horace, in the

persona of a philosophical teacher, advises that one ought to mourn moderately and pa-

tiently; in 4.12, however, Horace the convivial poet suggests that the foolishness of

mourning has its proper place. I argue that this is not an about-face in Horace’s philos-

ophy, but rather a shift in emphasis.

This paper begins with brief but thorough readings of the two odes, paying par-

ticular attention to their consolatory elements. I demonstrate that Odes 1.24 offers a con-

solation built upon Epicurean philosophy and emotional therapy, while Odes 4.12 draws

from the Epicurean practice of commemoration. This leads me to my final argument,

that the imagined symposium of 4.12 represents a poetic memorial of Horace and

Vergil's friendship. In the end, I argue that Horace, in an attempt to console himself,

Margheim !4

imagines and invokes Vergil’s literary persona to share in a poetic dialogue, thereby

creating a poetic space in which the acknowledged folly of such a post-mortem invoca-

tion is permitted.

1. Consolation in Odes 1.24

Odes 1.24 was published in 23 B.C. within the first book of Horace’s Carmina. 6

Horace likely wrote the poem in the mid-20s, following the death of Quintilius Varus of

Cremona, a mutual friend of both Vergil and Horace. As Michael Putnam points out, 7

the ode generically conflates both epicedium and consolatio; it is simultaneously a lamen-

tation for Quintilius and a condolence for Vergil. Structurally, these two genres divide 8

the poem in half. Aside from its generic elements, the poem also has an “almost critical

For bibliography, see Putnam 1993: 123 n. 1 and Thibodeau 2003: 243 n. 1.6

Vergil and Quintilius were members of a well-attested Roman Epicurean community whose other mem7 -bers were L. Varius Rufus and Plotius Tucca. See Thibodeau 2003: 248 and Armstrong 2003: 2-3 for dis-cussion of this Roman Epicurean quartet as well as the sources that attest them. There is also some evi-dence to suggest that Horace was also a member of this coterie. For example, in Sat. 1.5 and 1.10, Horace describes Plotius, Varius, and Vergil as his “candid” friends, an Epicurean buzzword (For candor as a Latin translation of parrhesia, see DeWitt 1935: 313-4). Additionally, by 380 Saint Jerome attests Horace’s participation in this Epicurean community (see Chronicon in the 190th Olympiad). For the position that Horace was merely an acquaintance of Philodemus, however, see Oberhelman and Armstrong 1995: 233-55; that he was only an acquaintance of the quartette, see Gigante 1995. Whether or not he was a full member of the group, however, it is beyond dispute that Horace was at least acquainted with its members and their mentor, Philodemus of Gadara. Although Horace only names Philodemus at Sat. 1.2.121, the philosopher’s influence is felt throughout the Satires and Odes, including in Odes 1.24's parrhesiatic tenor.

Putnam 1993: 123; For the rhetoric of consolation in 1.24, see Pasquali 1920: 249-57.8

Margheim !5

tone,” which Philip Thibodeau argues Epicurean frank criticism (parrhesia) underpins. 9

Thus, in Odes 1.24, Horace conflates eulogy, consolation, and therapy and Vergil conse-

quently occupies three roles: the addressee in a dirge, recipient of consolation, and pa-

tient undergoing therapy. In what follows I wish to focus upon this second function 10

and its Epicurean context in particular.

Thibodeau argues convincingly that the poem functions as Epicurean emotional

therapy. While his argument is thorough and wide-ranging, for our purposes the cen11 -

tral stanza will prove sufficient to demonstrate the manner and content of Horace's crit-

icism of Vergil's mourning:

Multis ille bonis flebilis occidit,nulli flebilior quam tibi, Vergili.Tu frustra pius, heu, non ita creditum poscis Quintilium deos.

Odes 1.24.9-12

He died mourned by many good men, but mourned by none more than by you, Vergil. You, uselessly pious, ask the gods for Quintilius, alas! not en-trusted on those terms.

Thibodeau 2003: 244; On the parrhesiatic tone, see Armstrong 2008: 97-99.9

These roles are not mutually exclusive. In Vatican Sayings 66, Epicurus says, “we sympathize with our 10friends, not through lamentation, but through thoughtful concern” (συμπαθῶμεν τοῖς φίλοις οὐ θρηνοῦντες ἀλλὰ φροντίζοντες). Horace conflates these personae in such a way as to sympathize with Vergil and simultaneously show him his error.

Thibodeau 2003.11

Margheim !6

Horace is curt. He articulates two issues in Vergil’s mourning. The shift from flebilis to

flebior points to the first issue. The Epicureans taught metriopatheia, emotional modera-

tion, yet Vergil is pictured as the emotional outlier. This could be for two reasons: ei12 -

ther Vergil is mourning excessively or Vergil, as Quintilius’ closest friend, was struck

hardest by his death. The former is clearly more critical than the latter. Nonetheless, one

senses a critical tone in the following lines where Horace describes Vergil as "uselessly

pious" (11). Of course, the deep resonances of pius in Vergil's own corpus speak for

themselves and only ratchet up the force of this second point of criticism. Vergil may be

attempting to act correctly in his mourning, but his actions are useless and therefore

impious (nefas, the last word of the poem). Beyond merely grieving Quintilius, Vergil is

apparently asking the gods to return him to life (11-2). Akbar Khan even goes so far as

to argue that the ode’s first half mimics an actual dirge written by Vergil in which Vergil

seeks a poetic resurrection. The whole poem is focused on reminding Vergil of the 13

foolishness of such thoughts and desires.

Horace begins with the euphemistic description of the deceased Quintilius as

"eternally asleep" (perpetuus sopor, 1.24.5). Near the middle of the poem, Horace be-

See Armstrong 2008: 79-121 on the Epicurean allowance of emotion but prohibition of emotional ex12 -cesses.

Khan 1999: 73-84. 13

Margheim !7

comes more explicit, reminding Vergil that blood, and therefore life, will not and cannot

“return to the empty shade” (vanae redeat sanguis imagini, 15). Finally, to close the poem

Horace declares that such desires are more than merely useless, they are utterly forbid-

den (durum; sed levius fit patentia / quicquid corrigere est nefas, 19-20). The poem itself an-

swers the opening question, "What shame or limit should there be to the longing for one

so loved?" (Quis desiderio sit pudor aut modus / tam cari capitis?, 1-2). Death provides the

limit; it is a threshold beyond which none can pass. These reminders, while tonally in

line with the Epicurean practice of parrhesia, also follow doctrinal Epicurean meta-

physics and ethics.

One finds the foundation for all Epicurean thought on death and the proper re-

sponse to it in Key Doctrines 2: “death is nothing to us” (ὁ θάνατος οὐδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς). 14

This simple statement communicates on two levels. First, it functions as an admonition

to Epicureans not to fear death while alive. In this way, the dictum is a normative re15 -

minder of Epicurean ethics. Secondly, however, the statement that “death is nothing to

us” summarizes the metaphysical argument behind this ethical position. This meta-

physical argument rests on the premise that death is annihilation:

All texts of Epicurus come from Usener 1987.14

For Epicurean arguments against the fear of death, see Warren 2004.15

Margheim !8

συνέθιζε δὲ ἐν τῷ νομίζειν μηδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς εἶναι τὸν θάνατον ἐπεὶ πᾶν ἀγαθὸν καὶ κακὸν ἐν αἰσθήσει· στέρησις δέ ἐστιν αἰσθήσεως ὁ θάνατος.

LM 124

Accustom yourself to hold that death is nothing to us, since all good and evil consist in sensation, and death is the privation of sensation.

Death is nothing to us because once we die, no “us” remains. If death is “privation of

sensation,” one cannot experience one’s own death; if one cannot experience one’s own

death, one cannot feel any pain when dead. Thus, one ought not to fear death.

Horace, throughout this poem, reminds Vergil of this latter point, that death is

annihilation. This is why Vergil's supposed "piety" is useless; this is why the blood will

not return to the shade. Yet the parrhesiatic therapy is only partially completed by these

philosophical reminders and sentiments. In order for the poem to be truly consolatory,

Horace must not only tell Vergil what to turn away from (excessive and foolish grief)

but also what to turn towards. To put it otherwise, if Horace’s philosophical therapy

states, “Quintilius is dead, nothing can change that,” the consolation should add,

“There is still much to live for and love here.” Indeed, as I argue, the consolatory ele-

ment of the ode attempts to demonstrate to Vergil that Horace himself is a friend of

Quintilian caliber.

Margheim !9

While the therapy of the poem answer the opening question, the consolation an-

swers the poem’s second question, “Is there anyone alive on par with Quintilius?”:

Ergo Quintilium perpetuus soporurget, cui Pudor et Iustitiae sororincorrupta Fides nudaque Veritas quando ullum inveniet parem?

Odes 1.24.5-8

So, everlasting slumber oppresses Quintilius. When will Shame and un-corrupted Faith, the sister of Justice, and naked Truth find anyone equal to him?

If frankness is the quintessential quality of Epicurean friendships, then Quintilius 16

himself is the quintessential friend. For proof, one need not look beyond Horace’s cor-

pus. First, the phrase nuda Veritas (7) neatly captures the meaning of the Greek term par-

rhesia. Along with justice, faith, and shame, frankness is one of Quintilius’ primary 17

virtues. Second, in his Ars Poetica, Horace recalls how Quintilius would reduce lines of

poetry to rubble with the single word corrigere (“correct it!”), always willing to offer his

critical, but wanted opinion. Finally, at Sat. 1.5.40-42, Quintilius, Vergil, and Plotius are 18

For the central role of frankness in Epicurean friendships, see Konstan et al. 1998 on Philodemus’ trea16 -tise PHerc. 1471 entitled peri parrhesias, which was recovered from Herculaneum, the site of the Epicurean school Philodemus led. For a general introduction, see Konstan et al. 1998: 1-24. For an outline of the nine features that distinguish Epicurean interpersonal therapy, see Armstrong 1993: 193-4 and Nussbaum 1986: 31-74.

For veritas and candor as Latin translations of parrhesia, see DeWitt 1935: 313-4.17

See AP 438-44 and Odes 1.24.20. 18

Margheim !10

described as candidiores, which emphasizes their charm and frankness. By practicing 19

the very art that defined so much of Quintilius’ character, Horace deftly reminds Vergil

that this friend still remains.

With this reminder, Horace completes his consolation. Every facet of this robust

philosophical and poetic consolatio can be found in the closing sententia of the poem:

Durum; sed levius fit patientia quicquid corrigere est nefas

Odes 1.24.19-20

It is hard; but whatever is forbidden to correct becomes easier to bear with patience.

These two lines summarize the two essential philosophical points of the ode:

– Death is annihilation.– Mourning that borders on desire for resurrection is useless/impious.

They also point the reader to the key poetic point of the ode: that Horace, a good

friends, remains. By repeating Quintilius’ favorite term, corrigere, Horace surreptitiously

slides into his role. The poem states emphatically yet tenderly (recall the eulogistic first

half of the ode) that one cannot "correct" death, as death is final annihilation. As a result

desire for the laws of nature to be reversed is nefas. Patience and good friends, however,

See above, n. 16.19

Margheim !11

can ease the burden. These sentiments follow trends of the consolatory tradition, as 20

well as doctrinal Epicureanism, a fact which makes Odes 4.12 all the more odd.

2. Commemoration in Odes 4.12

Odes 4.12 is a perplexing poem. Scholars question its addressee, its genre, and its

communicative purpose. Recent work by Richard Thomas and Jenny Strauss-Clay, 21

however, has begun to make sense of this enigmatic ode. Thomas' erudite commentary

solidifies the scholarly opinion that the addressee must be Vergil the poet while also of-

Johann 1968 enumerates six topoi of the consolatory tradition: de dolore moderando, de temporis vi, non usui 20sed detrimento luctus, de communi hominum condicione, de avida spe, and tuamne an mortui vicem doles. I sense all six in this poem, though the second and third (de temporis vi and non usui sed detrimento luctus) are clearly in view in Horace’s conclusion.

For bibliography on both sides of the issue, see Thomas 2011: 225-27 and Johnson 2004: 160-1. Contra 21Vergil, scholars point to Horace’s apparent lack of decorum. As Nisbet and Rudd 2004: xxix point out, one finds this opinion stated as early as the fifth century in the commentary of pseudo-Acro: “[Horace] writes to a Vergil who was a wholesale dealer” (ad Vergilium negotiatorem scribit). In the tenth century, two manu-scripts (Paris MSS 7974 and 7971) provide similar readings: “[an ode written] to a certain Vergil who was an ointments dealer” (ad Vergilium quendam unguentarium). Even in modern scholarship, many notable scholars—Fraenkel 1981 and Putnam 2006: 205-6 chief among them—follow this line of reasoning. They argue that Horace’s language in this poem (iuuenum nobilium cliens, 15, and studium lucri, 25) clashes with an invitation to a dead friend, especially one of such stature as Vergil. Fraenkel 1981: 418 goes so far as to describe Horace as “a monster of callousness” for his language. Pro Vergil, scholars point to the ode's Vergilian language and themes. Belmont 1980: 1-20 imagines a Roman reader attentive to the poem's in-tertextuality and contends that this reader could not but identify the addressee as the poet Vergil. The thought experiment persuades many, and today the opinio communis asserts the identification. In the most recent commentary on Odes 4, Thomas 2011: 227 summarizes the argument: “The addressee is indeed the poet [because] C. 4.12 is replete with Vergilian diction, style, and rhetorical devices, and it seems perverse to take the addressee as being anyone but the poet Vergil, the Vergilius to whom H[orace] refers by the same name on nine other occasions.”

Margheim !12

fering clear analysis of the ode's rich intertextual relationships. On the interpretive 22

side, Strauss-Clay has demonstrated that the post-mortem publication date is not a mi-

nor detail to be explained away, but rather an integral facet of Horace's poetic purpose.

Her analysis discerns a grieving Horace seeking imaginative self-consolation in the

ode. Regrettably, her analysis does not take into account the incongruities generated if 23

Odes 4.12 is indeed read as a self-consolation, given the explicit consolatory advise of-

fered to Vergil in Odes 1.24. Thus, having enumerated how Horace tells Vergil one ought

to grieve in 1.24, I now turn to illuminate how Horace pictures himself actually grieving

in 4.12.

Before turning to the poem proper, however, it is important to acknowledge a

possible objection. While I follow Strauss-Clay in taking the publication date of the ode

as central to any full interpretation, many scholars see this detail as nothing more than a

minor annoyance. For some, the publication date is primarily evidence for identifying

the addressee as some other Vergilius; for others, the publication date is divorced from 24

the composition date and any incongruities are seen to be resolved thusly. To the first, 25

Thomas 2011.22

Strauss-Clay 2002: 129-45.23

See above, n. 20. 24

For a primary example, see Bowra 1928: 165-7. 25

Margheim !13

it is difficult to imagine a Roman reader finishing the ode and not thinking of Rome’s

recently deceased national poet. To the second, even if Horace published an ode writ26 -

ten when Vergil was alive, his readers would nonetheless encounter it in a world in

which Vergil was dead. If one takes the ode as addressed to the Vergil, one simply must

deal with the full strangeness of its publication date. Before turning to these apparent

incongruities, however, I wish first to demonstrate that the poem addresses Vergil the

poet by closely analyzing of the ode’s opening three stanzas.

Odes 4.12 conflates two genres, each occupying approximately one-half of the

ode: spring poem (1-12) and invitation poem (13-28). The opening three stanzas (1-12)

display spring enlivening the various natural spheres: the inanimate (1-4), the animal

(5-8), and the human (9-12), yet each strophe also mixes spring’s rejuvenation with

death’s melancholy. In the second half of the ode, Horace invites Vergil to a sympo27 -

sium to which Vergil brings nard and Horace wine. Under this schema, the spring stan-

zas initiate the evocation and the invitation stanzas describe a literary convivium in

which poets meet and share their poetic wares.28

See Quinn 1963: 11, Bowra 1928: 165-7, Putnam 2006: 93, Belmont 1980: 1-20, Moritz 1969: 174-93, Porter 261973: 71-87, and Strauss-Clay 2002: 129-45.

See Odes 1.4 and 4.7 as particularly striking examples of spring and death commingling.27

Strauss-Clay 2002: 129-45, Moritz 1969: 174-93, Johnson 2004: 158-67, and Thomas 2011: 227 all pro28 -pound a form of this reading.

Margheim !14

Odes 4.12 opens with a natural scene that introduces the overarching themes of

friendship and death. The first three words, Iam veris comites, indicate both the ode’s

springtime setting and its friendship-centered theme. First, the introduction references

Catullus’s spring poem: iam ver egelidos refert tepores (“Already spring brings tepid

warmth,” 46.1), in which Catullus bids farewell to actual companions. Second, comites

may recall Horace’s description of his companions on the road to Brundisium, of which

Vergil was a member. Horace’s “comrades of spring” initially appear human. Horace 29 30

elaborates on the “comrades of spring,” however, placing the Thracian winds in apposi-

tion (impellunt animae lintea Thraciae, 4.12.2). The use of anima for ventus is unique in Ho-

race, and its uniqueness suggests its importance. This Greek cognate usage of anima, 31

following comites so closely, may echo Odes 1.3’s famous animae dimidium meae. Finally, 32

comites (4.12.1) may echo Catullus’ o dulces comitum valete coetus (“Farewell oh sweet company of 29friends,” 46.9) or even Sat. 1.5.8-9: cenantis haud animo aequo / exspectans comites (“impatiently awaiting my dinner companions”).

Belmont 1980: 15 proposes a subtle Vergilian allusion through a wordplay in the first line: Iam veris 30comites, quae mare temperant. Belmont suggests that ver(is) … mar(e) alludes to Vergil’s signature in the re-verse acrostic at Georgics 1.429-33: MA(RO)-VE(GILIVS)-PV(BLIVS). For examinations of Vergil’s acrostic, see Thomas 1998: ad G. 1.427-37 and Katz 2008: 105-23.

Garrison 1991: 362. See the other uses in Odes 1.3.8 (animae dimidium meae), 1.10.17 (pias laetis animas 31reponis sedibus), 2.17.5 (meae si partem animae), 3.9.12 (si parcent animae fata), and 4.10.8 (vel cur his animis), all of which treat anima in its “spiritual” sense. 3.9.12 specifically, addressed to Maecenas, recalls 1.3.8.

Furthermore, animae could also recall Vergil, Plotius and Varius, described as animae candidiores at Satires 321.5.41 (Belmont 1980: 15). For Quintilius, Vergil, and Horace as members of an Epicurean quartette, see Vita Vergilii of Probus (Castner 1988: 45); For more on this quartette, see above, p. 4 n. 7.

Margheim !15

the adjective Thraciae recalls Orpheus in Odes 1.24 (Threicio blandius Orpheo, 13). This ref-

erence could simultaneously adumbrate the theme of death and recall Horace’s previ-

ous Vergil odes. In all, this first stanza places the ode squarely within Horace’s previous

writings to and about Vergil.

The second stanza offers an extended allusion to the myth of Procne and Tereus.

On the literal level, instinct drives a bird to prepare her nest; on the metaphorical level,

however, Horace sees in this act resonances of Procne’s tale of death and revenge:

Nidum ponit Ityn flebiliter gemens infelix avis et Cecropiae domus aeternum opprobrium, quod male barbaras regum est ulta libidines.

Odes 4.12.5-8

The unlucky bird builds her nest, moaning mournfully for Itys and the eternal disgrace to the house of Cecrops, which took foul revenge on the barbarous lusts of kings.

The central image of the second stanza points to Vergil’s corpus. The infelix avis is un-

paralleled in Horace’s corpus, though it recalls Vergil’s abbreviated descriptions of the

myth, in particular, Vergil’s description of Orpheus’ lament in the Georgics:33

It recalls the image of Philomela, Procne’s sister, in the sixth book of the Eclogues: "Or how he detailed 33Tereus’ morphed limbs, what banquets and what gifts Philomela prepared for him, by what route she sought the desert, and on what wings the unlucky woman earlier flitted about her rooftops?” (aut ut mu-tatos Terei narraverit artus, / quas illi Philomela dapes, quae dona pararit, / quo cursu dessert petiverit et quibus ante / infelix sua tecta super volitaverit alis?, Eclogues 6.78-81)

Margheim !16

qualis populea maerens philomela sub umbra amissos queritur fetus, quos durus arator observans nido implumes detraxit; at illa flet noctem ramoque sedens miserabile carmen integrat et maestis late loca questibus implet.

Geo. 4.511-15

As Philomela, grieving beneath the poplar’s shade, laments her lost chil-dren, whom a rough ploughman snatched as she watched, featherless, from the nest; but she weeps all night and repeats her sad song perched on a branch and fills the place around with mournful cries.

In this Georgics section, Vergil describes Orpheus’ grief following the death of his wife,

foreshadowing Horace’s foolish apostrophe in the fourth stanza. In both language and 34

theme, Horace playfully echoes Vergil’s treatments of this tragic tale.

Strophe three alludes to Vergil’s Eclogues. Moving from the mournful songs of the

nesting bird, Horace imagines music in the form of shepherds’ singing:

Dicunt in tenero gramine pinguium 
custodes ovium carmina fistula 
delectantque deum, cui pecus et nigri 
 colles Arcadiae placent.

Odes 4.12.9-12

Putnam 2006: 99-100 points out that this stanza recalls Catullus’ mourning of his brother’s death at 3465.11-14: “But certainly I will love you always, I will sing mournful songs for your death always, songs like the Daulian maid sings beneath thick shade of the branches, moaning the fate of snatched-away Ity-lus” (at certe semper amabo,/ semper maesta tua carmina morte canam,/ qualia sub densis ramorum concinit um-bris/ Daulias, absumpti fata gemens Ityli). Both Catullus and Horace use the participle gemens only once in their corpora, and these lines of Catullus are the only previous direct mention of Itys in Latin literature still preserved. With this allusion, Horace suggests the depth of his loss: Vergil’s death is to Horace as Catullus’ brother’s was to Catullus.

Margheim !17

The custodians of fattened sheep sing songs in the soft grass with the pipe, and they delight the god whom the herd and black hills of Arcadia please.

Horace’s references to Vergil’s pastoral text are layered. While the fistula pipe is the pri-

mary instrument used in the Eclogues and Pan, the deus Arcadiae, appears at the climax

of the final eclogue, the reader senses Vergil’s pastoral presence most vividly in Ho35 -

race’s reference to the mythical land of Arcadia. Once again, Horace hints at Vergil’s po-

etic presence before his name actually appears.

This allusive evocation of Vergil's poetic persona initiates a poetic embrace.

Alden Smith defines poetic embrace as the conversation between poets through allusion

and intertextuality. Poets can revivify their predecessors and peers by perpetuating 36

their poetic voice in and through their own texts. If this understanding of allusion’s

immortalizing potency appears anachronistic, one need not look beyond two excerpts

from Augustan-age poets. The first comes from Ovid:

… sed carmina maior imago sunt mea, quae mando qualiacumque legas.

Tristia 1.7.11-12

At Ecl. 10.26: “Pan, Arcadia’s god, came, whom we ourselves saw blood red with elderberries and ver35 -milion” (Pan deus Arcadiae uenit, quem uidimus ipsi / sanguineis ebuli bacis minioque rubentem).

Smith 1997: passim. He defines "textual embrace" as "a relationship ... in a synchronic continuum be36 -tween reader and author" (20). Smith examines how Ovid reads, revivifies, and so immortalizes Vergil by alluding to Vergil.

Margheim !18

But my poetry is a better image, and whatever the quality, I entrust it to you so that you may read it.

Ovid recognized that poetry creates a persona of the poet, which is embodied in the

text. The second comes from Horace’s fourth book of Odes:

Vixere fortes ante Agamemnona multi; sed omnes inlacrimabiles urgentur ignotique longa nocte, carent quia uate sacro.

Odes 4.9.25-28

Many brave men lived before Agamemnon, but all are unwept and un-known, pressed by the long night, because they lacked a sacred poet.

Horace reminds that poetry creates personae for those that the poet brings into the

realm of the poem. These personae are “eternal” insofar as readers continue to read the

poems that contain them. Poets can thus knowingly sustain a predecessor or peer’s lit-

erary persona by being readers themselves. As writers, however, they can also “revivi-

fy” another poet by incorporating some aspect of the predecessor’s poetry into their

own texts. The poem can thus function as a medium in which poets, dead or alive, for-

ever interact. In Odes 4.12, Horace cements this aspect of poetry’s power in the image of

a symposium.

Horace creates a wine-for-poetry analogy to suggest that Vergil is being invited

to a literary, not literal, symposium. Wine and nard are to poetry as a drinking party is

Margheim !19

to intertextuality. Throughout Horace’s lyric poetry, wine functions as a metonym for

poetry itself. In this ode, Horace’s wine “reflects the Dionysiac power of the sympo37 -

sium to renew all life.” Inviting the now dead Vergil to a symposium mediated by a 38

fine wine, Horace attempts to renew Vergil’s poetic life via poetic convivium. It is this

liberating wine-soaked literary symposium to which Horace calls Vergil to hasten.

Vergil’s swift arrival does not suffice, however. He must also bring a small jar of

unguent (nardi parvus onyx, 4.12.17). Horace insists that without Vergil’s gift, there can

be no party. If wine serves as metonymy for poetry, what might Vergil’s required nard 39

represent? In the Greek sympotic tradition, spikenard (νάρδος) occasionally flavors

wine (ναρδίτης). Horace proposes a quid pro quo: Vergil’s nard for Horace’s poetry. 40

Vergil’s unguent likely functions on the same metonymic level as Horace’s wine. Timo-

thy Johnson suggests that the nard represents poetry: “The metaphor, gift equals poetry,

Commager 1957.37

Johnson 2004: 162.38

Horace focuses on the nard’s necessity for three stanzas (nardi, 17 ... brevem, 27).39

Johnson 2004: 165 favors this reading, citing Dsc. 5.57 as an example. Horace himself references this 40sympotic side to nard in Odes 2.11.13-18: “Why not drink while we can, lying, thoughtlessly, under this towering pine, or this plane-tree, our greying hair scented with roses, and perfumed with nard from As-syria? Bacchus dispels all those cares that feed on us.” (Cur non sub alta uel platano uel hac/ pinu iacentes sic temere et rosa/ canos odorati capillos,/ dum licet, Assyriaque nardo / potamus uncti? dissipat Euhius/ curas edacis).

Margheim !20

transforms Vergil’s nard into a poem that he must bring to share at the symposion.” The 41

unguent is not merely aromatic; it compliments the wine. Vergil must hurry and bring

his poetry to this literary symposium in order to flavor Horace’s poetic wares. Vergil’s

nard represents his poetry, just as wine is a metonym for Horace’s poetry. Literal 42

unguent-mixed wine does not soak Horace’s proposed convivium, but literary wine—a

simulacrum of poetry.

Inviting a deceased Vergil to a poetic symposium, however, appears no less

guilty of the poetic nefas than doomed Vergil’s mourning in Odes 1.24. Unfortunately,

scholars’ metonymic reading of the symposium have, so far, failed to resolve Horace’s

seemingly disparate attitudes toward death and mourning in these two odes. Horace

even suggests that he is aware of his paradoxical position. At the ode’s conclusion, Ho-

race states sententiously: “to be foolish in the proper place is sweet” (dulce est desipere in

loco, 28). Under Epicureanism folly (desipere) is the antonym of wisdom; it is not mere

ibid.41

Through allusion to Propertius, Horace also suggests a funerary element to the nard’s purpose: “Un42 -grateful man, why couldn’t you pray for a wind to fan my pyre? Why didn’t my flames smell of nard? Was it so hard, indeed, to scatter cheap hyacinths or to honor my tomb with a shattered cask?” (cur uentos non ipse rogis, ingrate, petisti? / cur nardo flammae non oluere meae? / hoc etiam graue erat, nulla mercede hy-acinthos / inicere et fracto busta piare cado, Propertius 4.7.31-4). This speech forms part of Cynthia’s post mortem harangue aimed at Propertius. Nard can clearly function in the funeral ceremony. Horace’s nardi parvus onyx eliciet cadum (4.12.17) recalls Propertius’ nardo (4.7.32) and cado (4.7.34). On one level, then, Horace asks Vergil to bring the unguent for his own funeral. In return, Horace will procure the jar to shat-ter on his tomb. Once again, the spectre of death lies just beneath the ode’s surface.

Margheim !21

silliness. As noted above, the Epicurean doctrine on death holds that death was the an-

nihilation of one’s atoms, senses, and being. In contrast, “only a fool says that he fears

death” (ὥστε μάταιος ὁ λέγων δεδιέναι τὸν θάνατον, LM 125). Under the Epicurean

schema, to follow Epicurus’ dicta was to practice wisdom; to disregard them was folly.

Horace, by acting the fool, suggests that he is knowingly disregarding the Epicurean

philosophy that undergirded his counsel in Odes 1.24. Such a reading is strengthened by

careful analysis of the preceding line as well. In his Epistles, Horace himself defines fool-

ishness (stultitia) as the antithesis of wisdom: “Virtue is to flee vice, and wisdoms is first

and foremost to be free from foolishness” (virtus est vitium fugere et sapientia prima / stul-

titia caruisse, Ep. 1.1.41-42). Horace’s exhortation to “mix folly with your plans, for it is

sweet to be foolish in the proper place” (misce stultitiam consiliis, dulce est desipere in loco,

4.12.27-8) clearly has deeper philosophic resonances. Under the Epicurean philosophy

that informed his criticism in Odes 1.24, Horace’s post-mortem apostrophe is folly in the

deepest sense—it knowingly ignores reality. This is his acknowledged foolishness, yet

does Horace’s response to the death of a friend truly fall victim to his own previous crit-

icism? I argue no, because Horace does not seek to resurrect Vergil, but to memorialize

and immortalize a friend and a friendship. Horace’s avoidance of 1.24’s nefas may be

seen in the ode’s climax.

Margheim !22

Horace does not fully endorse such a foolish response to death; he adds a caveat.

It may be sweet to indulge in grief-induced folly, but only if practiced in the “proper

place.” Where is folly’s fit abode? I argue that Horace believes one may only ignore the

reality of death within the realm of a poem. True to his craft, Horace fashions an image,

rather than presents an argument to make this point. Horace does not invite an actual

Vergilius to a drinking party; he invokes Vergil’s literary persona to share in a poetic di-

alogue. Poetry functions unencumbered by death because poets’ personae can meet in

the intertextual space created by allusion to one another. As Strauss-Clay points out,

when these two poet’s textual personae meet at this literary symposium, “the dialogue

of these two poet-friends, which informed their lives and their work, is momentarily re-

animated – through the imagination, through poetry.” The symposium, as an instanti43 -

ation of poetic embrace, commemorates and immortalizes Horace and Vergil’s friend-

ship.

Such commemoration points to the Epicurean practice of commemorating the

dead. Diskin Clay provides a thorough examination of the Epicurean practice of com-

memorating the dead, primarily through the festival meal. These commemorative 44

Strauss-Clay 2002: 13443

Clay 1998: 55-74.44

Margheim !23

meals were ordained by Epicurus himself in his last will and testament, where he insti-

tutes five Epicurean festivals. Clay notes that for many Epicurean detractors these 45

commemorative meals were seen as contradictory with Epicurus’ philosophy. If death is

nothing and an Epicurean ought to live unknown (λάθε βιώσας), how does one ac-

count for these meals in which deceased Epicureans are commemorated? In many ways,

the contradiction one senses in Horace’s post-mortem poems to Vergil is mirrored in the

foundations of Epicureanism itself. Clay, however, offers a succinct account of why

these feasts were so foundational to the Epicurean community: “They meant nothing to

the dead; but of the living members of the Epicurean community, both of the ‘family’

and those who lived outside the garden, they made a single body.” The communal and 46

commemorative meals are aimed not at the dead but at the living; they help to form a

community and “family” out of a philosophical sect.

The living-centered focus of Epicurean commemoration is sensed in a fragment

attributed to Epicurus:

ἡδὺ ἡ φίλου μνήμη τεθνηκότος.

The first is for his parents and brothers; the second for Epicurus’ own birthday; the third is for 45Metrodorus and Epicurus; the fourth is for Epicurus’ brothers’ birthdays; the fifth is for Polyainos’ birth-day. For a more detailed discussion of these feasts and their role in the Epicurean community, see Clay 1998: 67-74.

ibid. 74.46

Margheim !24

Fragment 213“The memory of a deceased friend is sweet.”47

Strikingly, to my mind, the conclusion of Odes 4.12 may refer to this sentiment. Horace’s

dulce translates ἡδὺ and both words begin their clauses, although both are predicate

nominatives. In 4.12, it is folly that is sweet—a philosophical folly that ignores the

metaphysics of death within the realm of poetry. Yet this folly is not without its own

philosophical foundation. As long as Horace does not actually think or imagine that he

might invite the dead Vergil, as long as he merely remembers and re-imagines their

friendship, he is fully in line with the other half of Epicurean thought on death and our

reaction to it. Horace memorializes Vergil and their friendship by playing out the Epi-

curean practice of commemorative symposia.

So, has Horace contradicted his own advice in 1.24 by addressing Vergil as if

alive in 4.12? I believe not. Rather than being contradictory, the consolatory conclusion

of Odes 4.12 (“it is sweet to act the fool in the proper place”) tempers that of 2.14 (“It is

hard; but whatever is forbidden to correct becomes easier to bear with patience”). Ho-

race does not forget that it is “forbidden to correct” death; rather, he has changed his

consolatory mode. Like the tension between Epicurean philosophy and Epicurean prac-

= Plutarch, non posse 1105E47

Margheim !25

tice, Horace balances views of how one ought to mourn and how one might actually

mourn in these two poems. One ought to mourn with stoic patience, remembering those

who still live, yet sometimes one needs to mourn imaginatively and foolishly. In order

to console himself, Horace imagines and invokes Vergil’s literary persona to share in a

poetic dialogue, thereby creating a poetic space in which the folly of such a post-

mortem invocation is permitted. If, in Odes 1.24, Horace reminds Vergil that a good

friend remains, in Odes 4.12 Horace may be reminding himself that his good friend’s

poetry, and therefor his persona, still remains as well.

Margheim !26

WORKS CITED

Armstrong, David. 1993. “The Addressees of the Ars Poetica: Herculaneum, the Pisones and Epicurean Protreptic.” MD 31: 185-230.

---. 2003. Introduction to Vergil, Philodemus, and the Augustans, edited by David Arm-strong, Jeff Fish, Patricia A. Johnston, and Marilyn B. Skinner. Austin: University of Texas Press.

---. 2008. “‘Be Angry and Sin Not’: Philodemus Versus the Stoics on Natural Bites and Natural Emotions.” In Passions and Moral Progress in Greco-Roman Thought. Edited by J. T. Fitzgerald. New York: Routledge.

Belmont, David. 1980. “The Vergilius of Horace, Ode 4.12.” TAPA 110: 1-20.

Bowra, Cecil M. 1928. “Horace, Odes IV. 12.” CR 42.5: 165-67.

Campbell, John S. 1987. “Animae Dimidium Meae: Horace’s Tribute to Vergil.” CJ 82.4: 314-18.

Castner, Catherine J. 1988. Prosopography of Roman Epicureans from the Second Century B.C. to the Second Century A.D., Studien zur klassischen Philologie 34. Frankfurt: Peter Lang International Academic Publishers.

Clay, Diskin. 1998. “Individual and Community in the First Generation of the Epicurean School,” in Paradosis and Survival: Three Chapters in the Epicurean Philosophy. 55-57. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Commager, Steele. 1957. “The Function of Wine in Horace’s Odes.” In Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, 88: 68–80.

---. 1995. The Odes of Horace: A Critical Study. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

DeWitt, Norman W. 1935. “Parresiastic Poems of Horace.” CP 30.4: 312-19.

Margheim !27

Duckworth, George. 1956. “Animae Dimidium Meae: Two Poets of Rome,” TAPA 87: 281-316.

Fraenkel, Eduard. 1981. Horace. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Garrison, Daniel, editor. 1991. Horace: Epodes and Odes. Norman: University of Okla-homa Press.

Gigante, Marcello and Mario Capasso. 1989. “Il ritorno di Virgilio a Ercolano.” SIFC, 3d ser., 7: 3-6.

Johann, H. T. 1968. Trauer und Trost: eine quellen-und strukturanalytische Untersuchung der philosophischen Trostschriften über den Tod. Munich: Wilhelm Fink.

Johnson, Timothy. 1994. “Horace, C. IV.12: Vergilius at the symposion.” Vergilius 40: 49-66.

---. 2004. A Symposion of Praise: Horace Returns to Lyric in Odes IV. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Katz, J. 2008. “Vergil translates Aratus: Phaenomena 1-2 and Gerogics 1.1-2.” MD 60: 105-23.

Khan, H. Akbar. 1999. “Horace’s ode to Vergil on the Death of Quintilius: 1.24.” In Why Horace? A Collection of Interpretations. Edited by William Anderson. Wauconda: Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers.

Konstan, David, Diskin Clay, Clarence E. Glad, Johan Thom, and James Ware, eds. 1998. Philodemus On Frank Criticism. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

Lowrie, Michelle. 1994. “Lyric’s ‘Elegos’ and the Aristotelian Mean: Horace, C. 1.24, 1.33, and 2.9.” CW 87.5: 377-94.

Margheim, Stephen. 2012. “Banking on Friendship: Mercantile Language and Epicure-anism in Horace’s Odes Concerning Vergil.”

Margheim !28

Moritz, L. A. 1969. “Horace's Virgil.” G&R 16.2: 174-93.

Nisbet, Robert G. M. and Margaret Hubbard. 1990. A Commentary on Horace Odes Book 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nisbet, R. G. M. and Niall Rudd. 2004. A Commentary on Horace: Odes Book III. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nussbaum, Martha. 1986. “Therapeutic arguments: Epicurus and Aristotle.” In The Norms of Nature: Studies in Hellenistic Ethics. Edited by Malcolm Schofield and Gisela Striker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oberhelman, Steven and David Armstrong. 1995. “Satire as Poetry and the Impossibility of Metathesis in Horace’s Satires.” In Philodemus and Poetry. Edited by Dirk Ob-bink. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pasquali, Giorgio. 1920. Orazio Lirico. Firenze: Le Monnier.

Porter, David H. 1972. “Horace, Carmina, IV, 12,” Latomus 31: 71-87.

Putnam, Michael. 1993. “The Languages of Horace Odes 1.24.” CJ 88.2: 123-35.

---. 2006. Poetic Interplay: Catullus & Horace. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Quinn, Kenneth. 1963. Latin Explorations. Critical Studies in Roman Literature. London:

Routledge.

Smith, R. Alden. 1997. Poetic Allusion and Poetic Embrace in Ovid and Virgil. Ann Ar-bor: University of Michigan Press

Strauss-Clay, Jenny. 2002. “Sweet Folly: Horace, Odes 4:12 and the evocation of Virgil.”

129-45. In Horace and Greek Lyric Poetry. Edited by Michael Paschalis. University of Crete – Department of Philology.

Margheim !29

Thibodeau, Philip. 2003. “Can Vergil Cry? Epicureanism in Horace Odes 1.24.” CJ 98.3: 243-256.

Thomas, Richard F. 1998. Georgics Vol. 1: Books 1-2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

---. 2001. Virgil and the Augustan Reception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

---. 2011. Commentary on Odes IV and Carmen Saeculare. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Usener, H. 1987. Epicurea. North Stratford: Irvington Publishers Inc.

Warren, James. 2004. Facing Death: Epicurus and his Critics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

West, David A. 1995. Horace Odes I. Carpe Diem. Text, Translation and Commentary. Ox-ford: Oxford University Press.